Image copyright problem with Image:MZizijulas.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:MZizijulas.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on John Zizioulas page

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Zizioulas. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

That is not my peronal analysis, but overview of the analysis of the other people. Besides, addition od the section "Traditional ..." makes the whole article neutral. Before that, it was strictly in favor of the work of that man. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that your edits conform to BLP. My revision was intended simply to report the content of Zizioulas' views; I did not add anything arguing for or against them. To say that Zizioulas' views are not 'traditional' displays a POV and so fails to meet Wikipedia NPOV standards.

I hope we can work together to produce a full and balanced article on John Zizioulas.

Seminarist (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... now you are willing to cooperate. Great. Reporting on his work is one thing. Preventing the public to know that there are people who do disagree with his work is vandalism. Letting the people to know that there are those who disagree with him is not violation of the NPOV, but the freedom of speech.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you observe the chain of communication, I have always expressed my desire to work together for consensus. I would be very happy for you to provide NPOV descriptions of criticisms of Zizioulas. Previously you did not appear to be providing descriptions of criticisms, but to have been criticising him yourself.

Again, I hope you will provide NPOV descriptions of criticisms of Zizioulas. But please do not revert my contributions. Please see the talk page for the Zizioulas article.

I hope we can achieve consensus.

Seminarist (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You came as vandal and backed off only after my reaction. There is no need to continue talking here since we have discussion page of the article.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your language is abusive and fails to correspond to Wikipedia no personal attacks. Please familiarise yourself with this policy. I began to edit the John Zizioulas article because it was unacceptably one-sided, expressing the POV that Zizioulas as heterodox and non-traditional. You will notice that I have not backed off. However, I have no interest in engaging you at the low level of personal attacks and insults, as I have never read of such behaviour being advocated in the Gospel or in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Therefore, instead of responding with attacks and insults, I have attempted to work towards consensus. I believe we would reach consensus far quicker if you adopted a less hostile tone, and were less quick to revert constructive edits to the John Zizioulas page.

Seminarist (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

I am disappointed that you avoid apologising for (or even retracting) your earlier personal attack on me, in which you say: 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.'[1] This comment is disgraceful, and you had no business making it. It was also foolish, since I don't agree with Zizioulas' ecclesiology.

It is a shame that whilst you trumpet so loudly what it is to be a 'traditional Orthodox Christian', yet you do not behave like an Orthodox Christian.

In the light of our recent disagreement, I commend to you the remarks of Fr Seraphim Rose on 'Super-Correctness'.

Seminarist (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not avoiding anything. That is what I thought, that is what I think, and that is what I will think about your personae. Whether you agree with the Ziziology, or not, does not matter. Your disgraceful behavior in the whole matter, starting from the manipulation of my text, by changing it to fit your personal agendas, is what prompted me to exercise my freedom of speech. I will let the Church judge my Orthodoxy. Any other judgment is dropped in the toilet and flushed away.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that apologising is not your strong point.

In any case, I wasn't talking about your Orthodoxy; I was talking about your Christianity. Abusing people you don't know is simply not a Christian way to behave. But you can justify yourself by casting false allegations if you want; I won't press the matter.

Note, however, that the Zizioulas article is not your text. Wikipedia is public domain. That is why it is important for Wikipedia articles to be NPOV. And it is because I want the Zizioulas article to display NPOV that I removed the vandalism which you had put onto that page. And it because I value NPOV that I don't want the Zizioulas article to be used as propaganda by people who have an anti-Zizioulas agenda.

Seminarist (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "my text", I was referring to the discussion page, where your disgraceful behavior grew to the considerable extent. Therefore, I was never privatizing the article in question. BTW: For Traditional Orthodox, Orthodoxy = Christianity. No more and no less.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now - you're ranting again. Answering your questions and asking you questions is not disgraceful. Inquisitive, perhaps, but not disgraceful.

I take it from your last sentence that you don't believe in heterodox Christianity. Difficult to see how you can call Zizioulas 'heterodox' then. Seminarist (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions was never disgraceful. Modifying my own text to suit your agendas was, is, and will always be. And that is what you were doing.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making up stories. I didn't ever modify any text on the Zizioulas talk page. But, really, there's no need to. You've said you won't apologise. Fine. But just go with your decision; don't fabricate falsehoods. Seminarist (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, instead of trying to invent reasons why you don't need to apologise, why don't you go and answer some of my questions on the Zizioulas talk-page? That would be more productive. I am really interested to know why you think that that missionary booklet is not a questionable source. I would also like to know what Bishops and theologians agree you think share your understanding of traditional Orthdoxy. Seminarist (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not bordering with the lies anymore. You are in: Seminarist modifies text put down by the Cebactokpatop on discussion page.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! looks like a little argument is taking place. I'm going to step in and mediate a bit. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)}

Also, note that personal attacks are strictly prohibited. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seminarist (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, This looks like a POV problem. Please remember that wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia, so having NPOV is highly important. Regards, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compwhizii, what is the Wiki's policy with regards to the people that are proven liars? Are they in any way banned from further work on Wiki?

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, you wouldn't want this to go to AN or AN/I. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at what Sebastokrator's been doing to my talk page? Thanks. Seminarist (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cebactokpatop, STOP, This will go to ANI you continue. And Seminarist, what wrong has he been doing. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the John Zizioulas page for the history. (Zizioulas is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon, a senior Orthodox bishop.) Sebastokrator had been filling the page with anti-Zizioulas POV material reflecting fringe-views in contemporary Orthodoxy; I've been trying to make the article NPOV. (Here is how I found the article.) Sebastokrator has been insisting on pushing his material through repeated reverts, etc.; as a consequence the page has a 10-day block on it. You can see how the discussion has gone on the Talk:John Zizioulas page. It will take a while to wade through, but I think the basic issues are quite clear. Sebastokrator has been repeatedly incivil, has been obstructive, and has made at least one personal attack which I take seriously: 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.'[2] Seminarist (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Although his change was quantifiably small, the meaning of my text was turned upside-down. What he did on discussion page he did on article page as well, and his action is already disapproved by the mediator Justin.

BTW: He was playing around with my talk page as well. He is trying to hide the proof of his non compiance with the WP:HONESTY.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is a wikipedia policy that is taken seriously. WP:HONESTY is a essay, Not a Policy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That allows prooven liars to hurle around unpunished, and even have their versions of the articles locked. Very sad indeed. Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should desist with your accusations of lying. Qualifying a non-neutral heading does not constitute modifying your text. Seminarist (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations - that I have been changing the meaning of Sebastokrator's text on the Zizioulas article, on its talk page and on this talk page - are untrue. Seminarist (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]